I've never lived in a house for more than 3 years until now, going on 5, since CFL's have been introduced. I'm just now replacing the incandescents that came with my light fixtures. Haven't replaced a CFL in the new fixtures I bought though so I guess they are winning.

It's not just the length of service; the CFLs are 4 times more efficient than incandescent bulbs. That means you use 4x less electricity with CFLs by using a 22W bulb instead of a 100W bulb. Multiply that a few times over the house and you are saving a respectable amount of money each year. Replacing all of the incandescent bulbs in the US with CFLs would save 80TWh/year in power consumption. Further replacing them with LEDs would nearly double that. What are you holding onto? Get with the future.

The reason why I asked was it freaked me out that my bulb lasted probably about 8 months. It was in the kitchen where I do turn lights on and off at least 10 times a day. Like, what the hell. I still have mostly regular bulbs but did replace some a while ago.

steelhammer wrote:It's not just the length of service; the CFLs are 4 times more efficient than incandescent bulbs. That means you use 4x less electricity with CFLs by using a 22W bulb instead of a 100W bulb.

They may be 4x more efficient, but they often cost 4x as much, if not more, than inexpensive incandescents. And LED bulbs cost even more than CFLs. If all one cares about is using less electricity, then non-incandescent bulbs are the way to go. But if it's a question of cost, then factors like longevity strongly come into play. A CFL that croaks in a year because it's constantly being cycled on and off won't live long enough to recoup its greater initial cost through efficiency savings.

steelhammer wrote:It's not just the length of service; the CFLs are 4 times more efficient than incandescent bulbs. That means you use 4x less electricity with CFLs by using a 22W bulb instead of a 100W bulb.

They may be 4x more efficient, but they often cost 4x as much, if not more, than inexpensive incandescents. And LED bulbs cost even more than CFLs. If all one cares about is using less electricity, then non-incandescent bulbs are the way to go. But if it's a question of cost, then factors like longevity strongly come into play. A CFL that croaks in a year because it's constantly being cycled on and off won't live long enough to recoup its greater initial cost through efficiency savings.

Exactly my concern. They need to make those bulbs cheaper. Or fix them to stay lit even if you on/off a lot.

Well, we all have lamps all over our houses. Big lamps and small lamps. Ones that hang down and ones that stand. In the living room and the kitchen and next to the bed where we sleep. When you think about it, we could be surrounded by what may be serious danger. This has me pretty paranoid and I will have to do some more reading on this and maybe find a company/brand that is more careful when making these bulbs to prevent this. I guess it means no cheap bulbs at the 1 Dollar store. Not that I ever go there, just making a point about spending a little extra and going with a quality product.

Last edited by Sarcastic on Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"In every bulb that researchers tested they found that the protective coating around the light creating ‘phosphor’ was cracked, allowing dangerous ultraviolet rays to escape."

I do not believe NEMA's statement on safety and feel they may have been surprised to find this as well. But like the food industry that puts crap into our food, I would think these guys care less about your health than making a profit.